(The following is written from a Pro-Life position. But even Republicans supporting a right to abortion should read this, for it helps to see political allies be effective in their messaging)

​​Let’s play make believe.

Imagine if abortion supporters had never co-opted the term, Choice. Instead, they just called for Reproductive Freedom, Women’s Medical Liberty—anything but Pro-Choice. Had Democrats never co-opted Choice with abortion, what would we think of Republicans calling our Party “The Party of Choice,” while labeling Democrats “The Party of Control?”

I think we’d love it. After all, people love choices, and Republicans offer far more choices than Democrats—far, far more. So Choice should be our word, anyway. And unlike Liberty, which conjures images of men in white wigs issuing demands, Choice is personal and contemporary. It moves us from “Don’t take my liberties…and stay off my lawn!” to “I want you to have more choices.”

The fact is, Choice sells.

Better yet, Choice-Versus-Control puts Democrats in a defensive position. Why? Because nearly all Democrat initiatives are grounded in Control, and people hate being controlled. Just listen to friends discuss micromanaging bosses, suffocating parents, HOA’s—see what I mean? If we push a Choice-Versus-Control narrative, all Democrat legislation would come under that spotlight.

Abortion: Our Biggest Roadblock

But back to reality. Knowing the advantage Choice brings Republicans, Democrats co-opted our word with a single issue: Abortion. It's incredible. In a society that loves what we offer (Choice) and hates what our opponents offer (Control), we simply refuse to use the words. With one brilliant maneuver, Democrats bullied us out of our best sales pitch.

I hear Republicans fret: "If we say we're for Choice, people will think we support Abortion! Democrats will mock us for claiming to represent Choice--because of Abortion! It's confusing, because...because...Abortion! All is lost! Run for your lives! The meteor is coming!

Okay, I'm exaggerating...slightly. But should we have conceded Choice so easily? I don't think so. In fact, conceding Choice has reframed all political debate in the Democrats' favor. Not good, people.

Here's the truth: There is nothing Anti-Choice about the Pro-Life position. NOTHING. ​

Steeped in resentment, Abortion supporters won’t often listen to Pro-Lifers. They think we want to control them, so our first words must disarm that anger—not win a debate. That’s why I lead by praising Choice and opposing Control.

“I’m Pro-Life, but I love the reason you’re Pro-Choice. You don’t want the government telling a woman what to do with her body. I agree.”

Next, I share my Republican Choice Standard:

“I just don’t want one person’s choice taking away another person’s choice, so our only disagreement is on when another person is in play.”

And finally, I use Choice to forge agreement:

“And that’s just a question of science. We can debate when life begins, but until then, why don’t we just agree we both care about people—women, babies, everyone—and we both support Choice. Fair enough?”

Voila. In seconds, Pro-Life is no longer Anti-Choice, and I’m the nice, reasonable person in a heated topic. I’ve gone from bad guy to good guy—all because of Choice.

2. If they’re open to more discussion, I can select from many points:

"Except for rape, the whole point of abortion is to erase consequences for choices freely made, right? Two people chose to engage in behavior that might produce a pregnancy, and now they want the consequence erased. That’s not Pro-Choice. It’s Anti-Consequence.”

“In fact, if the unborn are allowed to grow, they’ll make thousands of choices—all of which are erased by the one choice of abortion. Erasing thousands of choices with one choice is hardly Pro-Choice, right?”

“Pro-Life also isn’t Anti-Woman. After all:

1. The most pro-abortion person isn’t the young woman who is pregnant; it’s the guy who got her pregnant. She at least she feels some sense of nurture, while all he wants is escape. 2. Besides, half the unborn aborted are female, right? 3. And have you ever watched a Pro-Life demonstration? It’s mostly women. Why is that?”

Right now, we’re losing millions of votes from people who simply equate Pro-Life with Anti-Choice and Anti-Women. Millions and millions of votes. And by not claiming Choice, we prevent the above discussion from ever happening—meaning we can’t shed the “Bad Guy” label. We’re stuck.

Faced with a wall of single female voters assuming the worst, we’re paying a huge price for running from our own word. We’re distrusted. Unheard. Worse yet, entirely disregarded. At this point, we desperately need a discussion—even one beginning with backlash. We need people talking about Choice and Republicans, because our silence on it leaves us as villains.

Truth is, we Pro-Lifers make lots of great points, such as when the unborn have heartbeats or feel pain. We rightly warn against women assuming abortion won’t affect them, and we back this up with statistics. We’re good people caring about good people! But if society thinks we’re against the thing society loves—Choice--then they won’t listen to our great points. And that is what’s happening. We’re a bunch of smart, loving people in a deaf, angry room.

You know, I wish Democrats had never hijacked our word through twisting an issue like Abortion. It was brilliant strategy—a game-changer. Raised in Democrat circles, I know full well why they did it, and how they use it. They actually claimed a gender. Remarkable.

But now we can surprise people with simple rebranding. Let’s just say we’re for Choice, and our opponents are for Control. Then back it up. And when they launch their Abortion-based backlash, we’ll not only open a discussion that has been closed for millions of voters, but we will win that discussion, person by person.

Why? Because we are for Choice. Democrats are for Control. And truth, my friends, is on our side.

Think about it. Each election season, Democrats spend lots of time blurring lines—speaking of balanced budgets, religious freedoms, and of course, jobs, jobs, jobs (none of which they produce). Mouthing these terms like salesmen mouthing, “Year End Savings,” they embrace pale pastels…

…except when calling Republicans bigoted, sexist homophobes who want the earth to burn. And while it burns, we build lavish spaceships for escaping to a secret world called “Planet Rushy-Trumpy.”

(I’m told Rushy-Trumpy is solely populated by male Trump voters and incredibly lifelike female pleasure-bots, who only say “Master,” “Yes”—usually not in that order—and “NRA”)

But I digress.

Point is, Democrats want blurred lines. They like “evolving” moralities, “living” Constitutions, “open” borders, and “fluid” genders. Even in 1975, Reagan knew pale pastels put the game on Democrat turf.

On that turf, voters can only follow whoever gives them more. More what, you ask? More anything. Like more stuff paid for by other taxpayers. But that’s stealing, you say? No it isn’t, because we use majority votes! That’s mob rule and looting, you say? No it isn’t, because on this turf, we use evolving, living, open, and fluid definitions! Stealing is “Government-guided generosity.” Mobs are “Steering committees encouraging your generosity.” Looting is “Celebrating your generosity—door to door!”

“More, more, more! Force businesses to pay my kid $15/hour without cutting staff or raising prices! “Force taxpayers to spend far more in subsidies on green energy than the same amount of energy from fossil fuels—then tell me we’re creating ‘green jobs!’ This makes me happy inside!”“Force Conservatives to pay twice to keep their kids out of schools opposing Conservatism! Conservatives can afford it—they have all the money! Hollywood and Google told me so! That’s why Conservatives can afford pleasure-bots!!!”

“I like me! I don’t like them! Give me their stuff, and tell me I deserve it! Give me power over them, and call it justice! I…WANT…MORE!!!”

You like tyranny? Then sell pale pastels. But if tyranny isn’t for you, try drawing a clear line.

And which line should we draw? Well, first let’s see what lines to avoid.

1. Don’t use a person.

Many Conservatives today draw the line, “Are you for or against Trump?” Hmmmm… I’m for Trump, and I’ve called out many Never Trumpers. But drawing our line with a person causes problems.

a) First, it isn’t what President Trump wants. Though uber-confident, our President has repeatedly said it’s about us, not him.

Unlike Obama, Trump wants loyalty, not worship. There are no Greek columns with Trump; no schoolkids singing his glory, no posters proclaiming him as our “hope.” Obama wanted America fundamentally transformed in his image. Trump just wants America to, well, win.

b) When we draw lines demanding people support “Our Guy,” they resent us. Sure, we’ll rally our group. But others tire of us, as we grade everyone by whether they’re for him or against him. This can make us sound like cultists. It makes us sound weak. Frankly, we sound gullible.

c) People can fall. Hey, no one’s perfect, and everyone makes mistakes opponents can cite.

2. Don’t use an issue.

This is called “Single Issue Voting,” and I’ve heard it in so many ways:

“I draw the line with guns. Any limits with my freedoms, and I’m out!”“I draw the line with abortion.”“I draw the line with immigration and the Wall.”“I draw the line with repealing Obamacare.”

Now understand, I mention these issues because they’re critical for me. But when I make one issue the dividing line, I virtually guarantee my defeat. Why? Because I’m employing a strategy that only works if no one else does it.

Let’s say we line up twenty issues. Then every Conservative picks a top one (or two or three), saying, “Here’s where I draw the line!” If we each demand our issues take precedence, no candidate can unite us. Doomed from the start, we’re overrun by Democrats recruiting with one thing—getting more.

Like I said, Single Issue Voting only works if no one else does it. That’s bad strategy.

3. Don’t use a big list.

Some Republicans want another Contract with America. “Tell people what we’re for, not just what we’re against!”

Well, yes…and no.

The Contract was awesome, and we certainly want clear priorities. I’m all for that. But don’t lead with it. Why? Because in today’s political climate, lengthy lists won’t break through.

Think about it. Our audience—the voters—doesn’t trust or hear us enough to focus on lists. Worse yet, they’re encased in far-left dogma from the Big 3 Influencers of Public Opinion: Media, Academia, and Entertainment. So, nothing will puncture that barrier except a single, clear message.

If we lead with a list, all they’ll hear is noise—too many demands from a group they’re convinced are bigoted sexists burning the earth and fleeing to Planet Rushy-Trumpy.

So those are three lines to avoid, but what should our line achieve? What are the goals?

Simple. The line we draw must:

1. Expose the Democrats’ greatest fault—something they can’t stop doing. 2. Promote our greatest strength—something Conservatives love. 3. Achieve these things in clear terms voters use and like. In other words, don’t lead with terms like liberty, freedom, opportunity, or family values, since voters rarely think in these terms.

This is why I advocate drawing the line, Choice versus Control.

Democrats can’t stop controlling. If we don’t like something, we don’t do it. If they don’t like something, they ban it.

If we drive slow, we use the right lane, allowing others to pass at their pace. If Democrats drive slow, they often use the left lane (I’m serious—read the bumper stickers). Or when possible, they group together, forming human blockades across all lanes. I envision them opening their windows and locking arms in solidarity. Or, they’ll thrust their fists in the air, shouting, “Build this Wall! Build this Wall!”

I hate driving behind these Democrats. But again, I digress.

Even relativism is a control device, designed to remove standards to which we can be held. “Evolving” moralities, “living” Constitutions, “open” borders, “fluid” genders—these all give control to the mob.

Thus, branding Democrats with Control is a winner. No one likes a micromanaging boss, right? So, we draw a clear line showing voters that Democrat politicians are the boss they despise. That’s easy.

As for Choice, this is a word everyone loves and uses—and it’s something Republicans love to give. Sure, some of us are unsure with social issues, but my next article will show we love Choice on those, too.

For now, just know Choice is our product. It is liberty and freedom in a more personal package. People want it. We can sell it. And as I’ve mentioned before, the opening messages are easy:

“We’re for Choice, they’re for Control.”“We want to control our own lives, not yours.”“We support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice. They impose choices they like on people they don’t.”

Voters respond much better to these opening lines than pushing our person, issue, or list. And in a setting of pale pastels where people demand, “More, more, more!”, Choice versus Control reminds them of these realities: Using government to steal is still stealing, using government to control is still controlling, and a mob of voters…

…is still a mob.

Speaking of Choice, we have one before us: Either draw a clear line with Choice versus Control, or compete entirely on the Democrats’ home turf.

Enough of the blame game. Enough acting like things will turn around with more organization, more leadership, more Trump, less Trump, more marketing to women, minorities, young people, more, more…enough!

An open door.​And without that door, all our great initiatives won’t make a dent in Colorado. They just won’t. But that can change.

The Not-So-Great Wall

Let me describe a Wall. No, not the Border Wall, but the Not-So-Great Wall between Republicans and Colorado’s voters:

1. This is a blue state getting bluer. Every trend has gone one direction for decades, and we’ve lost far too many customers (the voters). We’re here; they’re over there. And “there” is getting further away.2. It is far more difficult to win back lost customers than to get them in the first place.3. Our opponent—The Democrat Party—has its greatest strengths in the fastest growing demographics.4. Worse yet, we are largely walled out from these communities. For instance, our women’s groups have fantastic messages—but how many suburban women hear them?5. Meanwhile, our opponent owns the Big 3 Influencers of public opinion: Media, Academia, Entertainment. Controlling the narrative, these Influencers drown us out.6. Our President has great strengths, but his message hasn’t played well in Colorado. The polls overwhelmingly reflect this, especially among Colorado’s largest voting bloc—Unaffiliated voters. 7. Young people are turning out more, voting Democrat by huge margins.

I could go on, but do you see my point? Things like better organization are great, but we can’t organize our way back into the hearts of Colorado voters. Greater fundraising, smarter technology, bigger ground games—these good things won’t break through the Wall. It’s far too big; too resistant to more, more, more. That’s why I grimace when reading well-intentioned answers offered by some Conservatives. They’re shooting BB’s at a tank; arrows at a meteor.

So enough already. Let’s get serious.

Opening A Door

​Okay, how do we break through this Wall? How do we reach voters who don’t hear us, trust us, or want anything to do with us? How do we spark a conversation it seems no one wants to have?

We do it with a single word everyone loves: Choice. We must become The Party Of Choice.

Stay with me here. Imagine what would happen if Colorado Republicans launched an all new message:

“We are The Party of Choice. Democrats are The Party of Control.”

At first, some would scoff. Others would laugh. Still more would get angry, citing issues where they feel we don’t offer choice, such as abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana.

All this would be…awesome. Think about it:

· Those who never talk about us…would be talking about us! Those who never listen to us…would be demanding answers! Seizing the narrative, we would open a door. We’d open it by reframing the debate.· This takes us from defense to offense. Rather than play defense with denials—“But, but, we aren’t racist! We aren’t sexist!”—we’d instead switch to offense. “You bet we’re for Choice. And we can prove it.”· We’d offer a simple, fresh message: “Here’s my politics: I want to control my own life, not yours. That’s it.”· When challenged—say, on abortion—we’d surprise people with a fresh standard: “I support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice. Don’t you?”· On issues where many Colorado voters despise us, we’d lower their anger: o Abortion: “I’m pro-life, but I love the reason you’re pro-choice. You don’t want the government telling a woman what she can do with her body. I agree! I just don’t want one person’s choice taking away another person’s choice, so our only disagreement is whether another person is in play. We can debate the science if you want, but we already agree on one thing: We both love people.” (Can you just feel the anger dropping?)o Gay Marriage: “Marry who you want, but don’t tell a baker what product to sell, or a church what service to provide. One person’s choice shouldn’t take away someone else’s. Fair enough?”o If they bring up my group, the Christian Right: “Actually, Christianity is a Choice religion—there is no Christian Jihad. Never did Jesus and the Apostles force unbelievers to live like believers, and I don’t want my beliefs to be your laws. If you’re seeking a Control religion, might I recommend the Environmental Movement?”

· On all other issues, the field immediately tilts in our favor:o Education: “I want to choose how my kids are taught, not control how other people’s kids are taught. How about you?”o Gun Rights: “If a mother chooses to defend her kids, I won’t control how many bullets she carries. That’s her call, not mine.”o Gun Rights: “I want law-abiding citizens as well-armed as the law-breakers who would harm them. Shouldn’t the choice to obey laws be an advantage, not a disadvantage?”o Environment: “I want the cleanest environment you can afford to enjoy. If you can’t afford it, how is that sustainable? If you can’t enjoy it, what’s the point? Government shouldn’t tell you what you can afford or enjoy. That’s your choice.”o Energy: “Energy choices should serve the most people, not reward the most activists.”o Immigration: “How can I reward the choice to come here legally, if I don’t stop the choice to come here illegally?”o Immigration: “When people come here, I want America to be their home. Homes are protected with walls and doors, not lawns and floors. How do you choose to protect your home?”o General: “Do you want the government making you live like me? No? Good! But tell me, do you want the government making me live like you? Do you crave power you fear in others?”

Challenge them. Wake them. Make no mistake, the question, “Who supports Choice or Control?” spurs discussions Democrats don’t want. Why? Because unlike politics as usual—which bores people—these discussions fascinate people, reminding them how no one likes to be controlled. That’s political death for Democrats.

But if we don’t reframe the debate, all that remains is, “Which Party gives me more stuff?” That’s political gold for Democrats. It’s a closed door for us, and we’re the ones who closed it.

Why Not Use Other Words?

​Some Republicans would prefer we be the Party Of Liberty, or perhaps Freedom. Hey, these are great words! Unfortunately, they don’t sell—which is why Democrats used the abortion issue to co-opt “Choice.”

And boy did it work. Democrats are thanked, we’re resented, and we’re even afraid of our own word.

Meanwhile, when a Conservative says, “Liberty,” people envision old men in white wigs. As for “Freedom,” this can be slowly eroded, leaving people unaware they don’t have it. So Liberty and Freedom sound old or vague, while Choice sounds crisp, immediate, and personal—everyone freaks when a choice is taken. After all, what motivates a teenager? Losing “liberties” and “freedoms,” or losing the choice of which cellphone to use?

Please. I’d rather come between a mother bear and her cub than a teen and her cellphone.

Of course, some Republicans prefer “Opportunity.” But to many people, “Opportunity” sounds a lot like “Risk.”

Here’s the best reason to use “Choice”: Because Democrats don’t want us to. They know our using that word provokes discussions where there are none. It re-opens the debate; a debate they’ve closed.

It opens a door.

Want to see Democrats yawn? Then talk about “Liberty,” “Freedom,” and “Opportunity.” Want to see them smile and gush talking points? Then lead with policy positions—everything we’re “for.” Want to see them point and laugh? Then go on tirades about Hillary and the media—everything we’re “against.”

But if you want to see Democrats attack in panic, do something new: Talk about Choice-Versus-Control. Train your leaders in it. Train your candidates in it. Train the entire grassroots, and launch a fresh wave of ads.

In other words, Re…Frame…The…Debate! Do this, and you’ll see why Democrats like the debate framed right where it is, thank you very much. They want people talking rich-versus-poor, male-versus-female, black-versus-white…ANYTHING but Choice-Versus-Control. They want people talking about who gives more stuff, not who gives more choices.

And ultimately, Democrats want us blaming our leadership, candidates, ground game—anything that won’t open a door in their Wall. They don’t care if we win a few people with clever comments and targeted outreach, just so long as the vast majority tune us out. While we think tiny, they think big.

So folks, it’s time to think bigger. It’s time to reframe the entire debate. It’s time to challenge Colorado voters with the clearest message they’ve ever heard.

“We are The Party of Choice. They are The Party of Control.”“We want to control our own lives, not yours.”“We support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice. They impose choices they like on people they don’t.”

Honestly, here’s our bigger message: “We’re not what you thought we were. We’re the Good Guys.”

Now THAT is a Party I can sell to this market. THAT is a debate we can win. And THAT, my friends, is how you open a door through an impenetrable Wall.

Broadcast internationally, the Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle inspired millions. There was splendor. There was grace. Befitting Meghan’s Hollywood roots, there was even an air of politically correct, social inclusion. And throughout the pomp and celebration, there was a band of screaming Scots, thundering down a nearby hill.

Leading the charge was William Wallace—also known as Braveheart—whose steely eyes flashed rage borne of suffering. His hand gripped a battle axe. His face wore streaks of blue. With mighty shouts of “Freedom!” and “Kill the Brits!”, Braveheart’s warriors tore through the massive wedding party like threshers through dry wheat.

But it was different for the women. Hoisted kicking on shoulders, dozens of famed starlets were carried off, never to be seen again. No longer would their fashions be admired at premieres, nor their speeches heard at protest marches. Even Ms. Markle disappeared from view, lugged away by some nondescript savage who muttered, “Aye, this one’ll do…”

It was, in the end, a slaughter.

And here we are. Prince Harry stands bewildered, alone. Approaching him through rows of now empty seats is Braveheart, followed by a group of warriors. Sizing up the young prince, Braveheart stops a few feet away, lowers his axe to the ground…

(Braveheart huddles with his men for several minutes of intense debate. At long last, he again faces Harry)

Braveheart: Yer a shrrrrewd one, Laddie! But I shan’t be thrrrrrown by yer trrrrrrickery!

The Men: Aye! Aye! What he said! Aye!

Harry: Stop calling me Laddie! And how did you get in here?! Wasn’t there security out front?

Braveheart: Aye, Laddie! But they just stood at the gate—still as statues, they were! Oh, we charged at ‘em several times, trrrryin’ ta get a rrrrrise outta ‘em, but nary a one would budge! So we took a few selfies with ‘em, and rrrresumed our attack!

Harry: So no one fought back, but you attacked anyway? You just murdered my guests!

The Men: Aye! Aye! What he said! Aye!

Braveheart: Not now, lads!

Harry: Why commit such atrocities?! What did I ever do to you?!

Braveheart: Do ya know nothin’ of history, Laddie? Nothin’ of what ya’ve done? (Looking dramatically at the sky) Ya can take our land! Ya can take our women! But--

Harry: We’ve taken none of your women!

Braveheart: Would ya like ta? They’re not in demand! Ah suspect it’s the beards--

It’s not him enforcing immigration law as…well, you know…the law. It’s not him treating terror-sponsoring nations as greater threats than American coal miners. And it’s not even Judge Gorsich, that human barrier to the lawless Supreme Coven envisioned by Obama and Clinton.

What I love most is Trump’s simple, underlying theme, which is, “Relax.” In other words:

· Stop measuring every word and phrase. Be yourself. · Stop blaming America for all the world’s ills. Love your country. · Stop demanding total wins in every deal. Negotiate.· Stop hiding in safe spaces. Listen, learn, and grow.· Above all, stop telling others what they must earn, pay, sell, believe, say on campus, subsidize in healthcare, or justify with mountains of government paperwork. Control your life, not theirs.

Trump wants America enjoyed. That’s right; it is no longer a sin to like this place. So don’t be offended by every stray word. Don’t label disagreement as “hate.” Breathe in, exhale, repeat, and relax.

Man, I love Trump’s America.

And yet, Trump doesn’t always make life relaxing, right? Riled by media bias, our President fights back, often leaving us debating tweets rather than advancing our agenda.

This problem intensifies in my home Arapahoe County, where Trump lost by 13.8%. Like every president, Trump’s style plays better in some places than others (just ask Rust Belt Democrats how they feel about Obama…). It’s inevitable. Here in Arapahoe, people with concerns want to be heard—taken seriously. Until we do this, they can’t “relax.”

So...okay…how do we help these people relax when they’re hyperventilating over Trump?

Answer: We shareperspective.

If people get frustrated by our President’s latest comment, tweet, or perceived “scandal,” they’ll fixate, heaping importance on that issue. Our job? Broaden their scope. Put their eyes back on the forest, not the one tree that has them angry.

Step 1: Affirm. Rushing from their complaints—changing subjects too quickly—is a big mistake. For instance, if we say, “What Americans really care about is how our President is creating jobs,” people hear, “Your concern is stupid, and I’m uncomfortable discussing it.”

Remember, they’re fixated on one tree. They’re mad. So before they’ll see the forest, they must feel affirmed for their one concern—lest they dig in and fixate even more:

· They think Trump said something offensive? Say, “You like a more respectful tone? Me too.”· They think Trump is hiding facts? Say, “Hey, we all want more transparency. I respect that.”

Notice we’re not agreeing with their concerns. We’re just taking their best motives (like desiring respect and transparency), and affirming them. Is this lying, or manipulation? Not at all; we really do admire those traits. And by affirming their motives, we create in them an instant release. Now they’ve been heard. Now they’ll cling less. Now they’ll hear more.

Now we can talk about the forest.

Step 2: Broaden.

So what is that forest? Well, it can be a lot of things. For instance, if someone fixates on a Trump comment, I might explain that tree in the context of Trump’s whole statement or life’s work.

Here’s a common example: Trump’s most explosive quote was, “Grab ‘em by the p----.” He was referring to beautiful women, and it was a vulgar comment. Critics still mention this to me.

So what do I say? Simple. I affirm their concerns, then broaden their view to the wider context:

1. (Affirmation) I’m glad you don’t want women spoken of that way. It’s wrong.2. (Context of Trump’s life) But that comment was made in 2005, when Trump was supporting Democrats. I’m more interested in what he says today, supporting my Party.3. (Context of statement) And even back then, he was talking hypothetically, referring to how some women will allow a star to do anything.4. (More context of Trump’s life) Here’s the bottom line: Is there any evidence our President is grabbing women? Of course not. While Clinton spent 8 years with a “Do Not Disturb” sign on the Oval Office, Trump has been a perfect gentleman. Let’s keep perspective here: Trump’s comment didn't foretell how he’d act as President.5. (Challenge them to see the forest) So let me ask you this: If someone keeps harping on comments like that, do they want you focused on things that affect you, or things that don’t? Are they trying to serve your needs, or use your emotions?

No, you don’t have to say all that; choose what works best. But do you see how you’ve turned a problem (the tree) into an advantage (the forest)? Better yet, you’ve made opponents look bad.

Another way to broaden their vision is by mentioning the even bigger forest. For instance (I’m talking to the upset person now), you might not like Trump’s latest tweet, but…

…we’re $20 Trillion in debt that Trump never started. Is a tweet affecting you this much?…Obama had the first 8-year presidency without a single year of 3% growth. The number of people on public assistance skyrocketed. Does a tweet affect you that much?…illegal border crossings dropped 70% after Trump took office. Does a tweet mean that much?

Keep in mind, however, that bigger forests sound demeaning unless we first affirm the listener’s fixation. Start by affirming their tree, then broaden their vision to the forest—no shortcuts.

One last forest view is the slanted vision they’re receiving of Trump’s presidency—the media bias. In other words, before getting too upset about over the latest tree, look at the media pushing it.

Suppose someone fixates on Trump “colluding with Russia to steal the election.” Yes, it’s ludicrous, but in a county where Trump lost by 13.8%, it’s important we affirm first, then broaden:

1. (Affirmation) You want fair elections, and you’re worried Trump got outside help. Fair enough.2. (Context of Media Bias) But if you want fairness, then you also want these stories presented fairly. Problem is, 96% of the money donated by media members in the 2016 Presidential Election went to Hillary Clinton. So you’re hearing this story from a 24-1 bias.http://time.com/money/4533729/hillary-clinton-journalist-campaign-donations/3. (Challenge them to see the forest) Would you want a 24-1 bias reporting on you?4. (Give examples of trees they aren’t seeing) Check out what you’re missing. Not only is there still no evidence of collusion, but that’s with no cover-up. No smashed cellphones, no bleached hard drives, no 33,000 deleted emails—all the intel is open. Also, Trump’s actions as President have been decidedly bad for Russia. Are you hearing all this from the 24-1?

Conclusion

I think we’re still dealing with aftereffects of the Obama years, which left Americans on edge. Face it, President Obama made people tense. His general message (I’m paraphrasing) was, “These folks don’t trust those who don’t look like them,” or “America has been arrogant,” or “Republicans gotta sit in the back seat” or whatever. Driven by his radical tutelage, Obama pit Americans against each other and against their own country. No longer were we good, hard-working people. We were bitter clingers.

What a miserable 8 years.

Trump wants that changed. He wants people relaxing, looking at results affecting them, not exaggerated stories that don’t. He wants them working together again. And we can help.

Every day, we interact with concerned citizens—good people who have been programmed to fixate on lone trees rather than enjoy the forest. With just a few words, we can lift their concerns. After just a few words, they’ll stop making mountains out of molehills, and instead “Make America Great Again.”

So affirm them. Broaden them. Free them.

Addressing their concerns with honest perspective, we can help them all relax.

“First Republicans said they needed the House to stop Obamacare—but nothing happened! Then they said they needed the Senate—but nothing happened! Then they said they needed the White House—and still, nothing happened! It’s hopeless! We give up!”

Let me state this as clearly as possible: If we give up on the GOP right now, we are fools. Fools of the highest order. Epic, legendary, and almost unprecedented, F-O-O-L-S.

Clear enough?

Take a step back and ponder what just happened. We drove the ball to the opponent’s 5 yard line, but couldn’t punch it in—for now. This isn’t over. In fact, if we pull together over this next year, I can assure you Obamacare will be repealed, replaced, and burned to the ground…by Republicans.

Healthcare will be saved. Why?

Because 2018 should be a banner election for Senate Republicans. 25 Democrat seats are up for re-election, and only 8 Republican seats. Of the 25 Democrat seats, 10 are in states Trump won—5 of those by double digits. On the GOP side, nearly all the Senators are safe.

Even by pessimistic standards, Republicans should expand their Senate majority to 55-45. By more realistic standards, we should see a 57-43 majority after 2018.

Remember, Obamacare was rammed down our throats by a 59-41 Democrat majority, and a couple of today’s Senate Republicans are weak (GOP voters in Arizona and Alaska, you owe us YUGE apologies). Anyone expecting major repeal with a weak 52 seat majority is kidding themselves. They really are.

This isn’t McConnell’s fault—he lacks the votes. This isn’t Cruz’s and Paul’s fault—they’ve been team players like McConnell, voting for good amendments and several bills to end Obamacare.

Ultimately, this isn’t even the fault of McCain and Murkowski. They are who they’ve always been, but GOP voters in Arizona and Alaska chose them anyway. Want to blame someone? Blame Republican voters in those fairly safe states. Heck, I’ll join you.

But if you think it’s time to give up because Republicans promised repeal if they had the House, Senate, and Presidency, then you’re not watching the game. Seriously, you’re not! Looking at 2018, we aren’t just on the opponent’s 5 yard line. No, to complete the football analogy, our opponent just committed interference in the end zone, and we’ve got first down and goal at their 1 yard line.

And yet, we’re ready to punt! ARE WE CRAZY?! WHO PUNTS FROM THE 1? WE’RE ABOUT TO WIN!

So how do we win? That’s an easy, 3-step process:

1. Open your eyes and see the goal line in front of you. Just do it! Complaining about lost votes and broken promises feels good for a moment, but it doesn’t save America. Want America saved? We’re only a yard away, people! OPEN! YOUR! EYES!

2. Every Republican should get trained in easy talking points on the problems of Obamacare, then convince one unaffiliated voter—just one each—to want real repeal after 2018. Move the voters this much, and a healthier Senate majority will gladly make sweeping changes.

Win some American voters. Just one each. Hey, just mention soaring deductibles making coverage worthless, and you’ll win several! Also, 16 million of the 23 million who supposedly “lose coverage” with repeal only “lose” it by choice—because they’re no longer forced to buy it. Mention this, and you’ll shock every CNN viewer at the gym. I could give endless examples, since bashing Obamacare is about as hard as bashing Colin Kaepernick at a Tea Party rally.

Young Republicans should convince at least 5 voters each, since they know more independents, and Obamacare is a fiscal assault on the young. Think about it. When everyone pays to cover everyone, the young and healthy pay far, far, far, far, far more for the coverage they use! It’s the ultimate rip-off! Plus, Obamacare’s incredible Medicaid expansion piles hundreds of billions on the National Debt that is paid by—you guessed it—young people!

My goodness, if you’re a young Republican who can’t win 5 people on Obamacare Repeal, then you can’t sell water to a flapping fish on the pier. You can’t sell weed in Boulder. You can’t sell…did I mention weed in Boulder?!

In redder districts, run redder candidates who move the agenda. In bluer districts, run more moderate candidates who hold the line on some issues. This means working with Susan Collins in Maine, but we can do better in Arizona and Alaska. Think strategically, people!

Fellow Conservatives, this is no time to give up! This is no time to bemoan missed chances and unfulfilled promises. 2018 is coming. The ball is at the 1. Our opponents are terrified. All we have to do is open our eyes, win some people over, and unite. That’s it! The only thing stopping us is our own complaining!So smile and relax, people! Why pout and lose ground when we have a year to move voters and finish the job? Is this the time to abandon our one viable political party that can win? Really?

2018 is coming. Our opponents are reeling. It’s first and goal on their 1, and they know it. And yet, here I am, giving the most unexpected advice I could ever give to a team in this position:

“No, no, no, no! I never surveil you! I just record other people—people who speak with you.”

“But I’m in those recordings!”

“Oh, that’s just incidental! Although…”

“Although what?”

“I’m a bit concerned about your interest in that new girl at school. What do you really know about Katie, anyway?”

“Nothing! I’m working up courage to talk to her! I’ve only mentioned her to my best friends—”

“—real friends don’t leave cell phones open to compromise, dear—”

“—and written about her in my journal—”

“—which you did a terrible job hiding—”

“You’ve read my journal?!”

“No, no, no, no! I just made copies.”

“No!”

“But when my boss, President Obama, ordered they be shared with sixteen other agencies, I might have overheard some things…”

“Mom!”

“Please! Susan! We don’t stand on—”

“Sixteen agencies have my journal???”

“Well, they’re calling it a diary. ‘A boy and his diary.’”

“It’s a journal!”

“Sure it is, son.”

“Mom!”

“Susan! Look, it’s my job to protect you! That’s why I’ve also surveilled people Katie knows! I may have picked up some incidental comments from Katie, too—”

“Leave her alone!”

“I can’t! There were national security concerns involving Katie, and—”

“National Security? Like terrorism?”

“No, no, no, no! We call it, ‘Spontaneous Protest…ism.’ You never know when random shooting can start over a YouTube video.”

“A what?”

“Katie mentioned YouTube videos, and that’s where it starts, young man! One moment these kids are discussing YouTube, the next they’re gathering around embassies with rocket launchers they happened to find! I’ve seen it a thousand times…”

“—and we wouldn’t have known without your connection to Katie, and her connections to Russia.”

“Russia?”

“‘Katie’ can be short for ‘Katarina.’ That confirmed her Russian ties, so—”

“Russia?”

“But no one suspects you, son! I assured the agents you’ve always ‘served with honor and distinction’—just like I said about Beau Bergdahl!”

“NO!”

“Katie’s name had to be unmasked for official review, of course—”

“PLEASE, NO!”

“Well don’t look at me! I know nothing about the unmasking I did as part of my duties!”

“STOP IT! JUST STOP IT!”

“What else could I do? She mentioned YouTube! YOUTUBE!! But like I said on MSNBC, ‘I never leaked nothing to nobody!’ I just shared unmasked intel with sixteen other agencies! Don’t you believe in sharing?”

“I used to!”

“It’s a good thing my boss changed those rules in his last week on the job for some reason!”

“But Katie’s innocent!”

“And she’ll have every chance to prove that when she testifies!”

“Testifies?!”

“Sure! Like the team of agents told Katie while dragging her out of that crowded classroom—”

“NO!”

“—they said they would never have known about her potential for YouTube-related violence—”

“—omigosh-omigosh-omigosh—”

“—had you not provided her name—”

“—OMIGOSH-OMIGOSH-OMIGOSH—”

“—in those tear-soaked pages of your diary—”

“AUGH! AUGH! AAAAAAUUUUGH!!!”

“—that they found in your hope chest.”

“I DON’T HAVE A HOPE CHEST!!!”

“Are you sure? The video shows Katie screaming your name, and the agents yelling, ‘Hey! Quit blaming the sissy with the diary in his hope chest!’”

“AUGH! AAAAUUUUGH!!!”

“I saw it on YouTube.”

“But—”

“Relax, they’re professionals! They also provide security for United Airlines!”

“NOOOOO!!!”

“And I can assure you they didn’t use chemical weapons! Like I said when asked about Syria, United Airlines has agreed to ‘voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile’—meaning they won’t violate international law when dealing with overbooked flights!”

“WHAT?!”

“Though personally, I wouldn’t go near Katie without a hazmat suit...jus’ sayin’…”

The case of Tomi Lahren’s firing from The Blaze shows why Republicans are struggling to govern in Washington—and all of us are to blame.

Huh? Follow me here.

Sure, I think Lahren erred in calling pro-life Conservatives like me "hypocrites," but I also think Glenn Beck overreacted by firing her. This was a classic case of Conservatives showing our inability to reconcile.

If I were Beck, I’d have responded thusly: "Tomi, I support every choice that doesn't take away someone else's choice, so we only disagree on when someone else's choice is in play. I think human life begins earlier, you think later--a disagreement over science, not Conservatism. Neither of us is a hypocrite.”

That would end it. Lahren would take back her “hypocrite” comment, and all would be well.

But Beck didn’t do that, and here’s why: He doesn’t think in those terms. Neither does Lahren. And lest anyone blame them, the fact is few Conservatives today do think in those terms.

The problem? Today’s Conservatives draw the wrong lines. Rather than draw a clear line between us and the Left, we sketch an elaborate maze within the Right, labeling anyone failing to walk our chosen path as “hypocrites,” “RINO’s,” “purists”—pick a brand.

Lahren made this mistake, labeling as “hypocrites” any Conservatives not walking her path. Beck responded in kind, banishing her for not walking his path. And in Washington, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul made this mistake when trying to replace Obamacare (more on that later).

Let’s try something different: Back out of the maze. Let’s walk out where we entered, and allow me to draw some clear, simple lines:

Line #1: I want to control my own life, not yours. This is the heart of self-governance. Agree with this basic statement, and you’re a Conservative; you’re on our side of the line. If you disagree and wish to control others, you’re a Liberal. So the line I draw is between Choice (Conservative) and Control (Liberal).

But of course, some control is necessary, lest we descend into lawlessness. So how do we decide which choices are okay?

Simple. Just draw the next line.

Line #2: I support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice. If my choice removes your choice, that’s control—and we Conservatives don’t like that.

For instance, suppose I choose to steal a woman’s purse. Removing her choice of what to do with her money, my choice is a crime. Or suppose I create Obamacare, removing many choices, from coverage options to doctors to making healthy young people buy more than they need. By removing all these choices, my choice crosses the line. I’m controlling people.

The beauty of using my two lines—beyond their simplicity—is their flexibility. Sure, they unite Conservatives, as no Liberal can stay for long on our side of them without killing decades of Democrat legislation. But within Conservatism itself, these lines permit great diversity of thought and application.

Why? Because while Conservatives agree on these two lines, they won’t always agree on where the second one is drawn. In other words, they won’t always agree about when one person’s choice removes another person’s choice. And that’s okay.

Recognizing this, we on the Right can respectfully discuss where to draw Line #2 on each issue, respecting anyone who at least commits to standing on our side of the two lines. So if neither you nor I want our choices taking away the choices of others, that agreement alone lowers hostility. Now we share a common goal. Now we're talking the same language. Now we can relax, accept each other, and discuss the tough issues currently tearing Conservatives apart.

Had Lahren and Beck done this on the issue of abortion—as I demonstrated—they would have reconciled. Not agreed, mind you, but reconciled. They'd still be a team. But they didn't, so now they're a fiasco. And their failure came not because they aren’t Conservatives, but because they forgot what makes a Conservative. Leaving behind simple lines, they entered the maze.

Likewise, while Paul Ryan and Rand Paul ideally want similar healthcare plans, they disagree on how to get there in the current political climate. I prefer Paul’s plan, but I agree with Ryan that the political road to that plan—and the fallout of enacting it—could be treacherous.

Notice how Ryan and Paul are on the same side of my two lines. But failing to see this, each demanded the other walk a “correct” path through the maze. So just like Lahren and Beck, they became disrespectful, incurring great failure instead of success.

Ultimately, is this their fault? No, it’s ours. We’re their constituency; those pressuring them to navigate a maze rather than unite on our side of simple lines. We’re Ryan’s moderate district, telling him to move slowly, avoiding major backlash. We’re also Paul’s libertarian base, telling him to implement pure market principles now, lest Washington erode more liberties. Thanks to us, these two guys face enormous pressure.

Our civil war is so foolish. Hunting each other in a maze—like amateurs playing paintball—we have no right to chastise Beck, Lahren, Ryan, or Paul. Until we back out of the maze, our leaders must echo our division—or lose their base. We built the maze, folks. They’re trapped in it.

It’s hard to believe we won last November, as our civil war turns us from America’s political victors into America’s political joke. Meanwhile, Democrat leaders have no time for mazes. Standing proudly on the opposite side of both lines, they play for keeps. No games. No paintball. They want nothing less than total control over the choices of others, and our amateur infighting is handing it to them.

So, are Beck and Lahren bad people? No, they’re good Conservatives stuck in a bad maze, with the rest of us cheering on “our guy” like mobs at a cage match. This isn’t succeeding, folks. It never will. We need to draw the right lines, debate respectfully, and work together.

MODERATOR: “I’d like to welcome everyone to this, the First Presidential Debate of 2016. Mrs. Clinton, we’ll begin with your opening statement.​CLINTON: “Thank you, and thank you for inviting me here tonight—as if you had a choice, right? Am I right? My handlers want me to joke more!” (then, stiffly) “Ha!... Ha!...Ha!”

(silence)

“You know, unlike Republicans, I respect women, black people, Hispanics, gays, and every other helpless group needing me to survive! I am their ‘Champion!’ I cherish them, just like I cherish…ummm…let’s see…puppies! Yes, adorable puppies playing in the store window, wanting a home! And I am that home! Hello, little voters! Your Champion is here to respect you! Yes I am! Good little voters!”

(horrified silence)

“Meanwhile, my ultra-rich opponent cares only for the wealthiest of the wealthy, who fill their lives with needless luxuries—”

TRUMP: “Speaking of luxuries, I had the interior of my jet built exactly like the bridge of the Enterprise. It is so cool.”

CLINTON: “—using fellow Americans like pawns—”

TRUMP: “I make everyone on board lurch side to side, simulating battle action.”

CLINTON: “—satisfying their egos while humiliating others—”

TRUMP: “My Spock wears a Trump wig to look smarter.”

CLINTON: “—and thinking only of themselves.”

TRUMP: “Is it my turn yet? I have some great things to say about me.”

CLINTON: “WILL YOU STOP THAT?!”

TRUMP: “Stop what?”

MODERATOR: “Mrs. Clinton, you criticize wealthy people, but surely the Clinton Foundation has grown so lucrative and powerful—”

CLINTON: (purring) “I have a Foundation?”

(A large picture comes on the screen)

MODERATOR: “Please Mrs. Clinton, isn’t this you chairing a meeting at the Clinton Foundation?”

TRUMP: “You see?! This is what I’ve been talking about! What do you expect from Lyin’ Ted…or Jeb, or…who is my opponent now?”

CLINTON: “I am!”

TRUMP: “That’s right! And whoever you are—wait, are you a woman?—whoever you are, you’re a liar!”

MODERATOR: “Mr. Trump, please refrain from—”

CLINTON: “Me? A liar? No witness has lived to confirm that!”

MODERATOR: “Mrs. Clinton, please—”

TRUMP: “It’s true! No witness will confirm my opponent is a woman!”

CLINTON: “Hey!”

TRUMP: “I mean, it’d take a helluva investigation to figure out—”

MODERATOR: “Mr. Trump, is there a point to all this?”

TRUMP: “There is absolutely a point to all this! An amazing point! I’m the guy who gets things done! I see a mess, and I fix it! I’m hiring a whole fleet of janitors wearing hazmat suits with the best disinfectants…to make my closets clean again!”

I doubt many people will read this and even fewer will probably finish it, but really, it’s more for me to release some frustration and try to sort through my thoughts. I was going to go to the gym this morning, but decided to see what was on Facebook…and there went the workout.

The more I read, the more I thought, “Oh, come on!”

I’m really wondering what has become of us. Since 2008, I have watched friends, acquaintances and strangers who all identify as “right-wing” complain. Their outrage has been justified, most definitely. Naming just a few scandals include: Obamacare being forced through Congress using cloture, the SCOTUS decision upholding it (thanks for nothing, John Roberts), the outrageously expensive Stimulus and ballooning national debt, the IRS targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups, Benghazi, Hillary’s email server and the endless web of her lies and deceit, far too extensive to list here.

Ok. Anger, rants, disillusionment all make sense. I totally get it. I’ve done it myself.

But let’s look at today. After rejecting Romney in 2012 (for not being Conservative enough), we have suffered another four years of the Obama administration and Hillary’s corruption. And, my Facebook feed is still filled with anger and rants. What’s scary is that now, the majority of this anger is aimed at other Conservatives (whatever shade of red they wear). I'll leave out names, but people I care about and who ranted for the past 8 years against the scandals listed above, are now saying things like, “I can’t vote for Trump because he’s supportive of Planned Parenthood,” or “I’d rather they win with their monster than we win with ours,” or “I disagree with Hillary on policy, but Trump on character, therefore, Trump is worse.”

To quote a minion, “Whaaaaa????”

Hillary has better character? Oh, come on! We’re talking about the woman who lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead. Through obvious insider trading, she made $100,000 from a miniscule investment on cattle futures. She ran a hit squad targeting victims of her husband’s sexual abuse, and oh, by the way, hid and erased her emails on a private server while receiving millions in donations from foreign nations – donations likely discussed in those deleted emails. How many people have died because of Trump’s decisions? Such a comment represents willful delusion.

Their monster vs. ours? Oh, come on! Ours may be uncouth and at times, a jerk, but no one has died due to his business decisions. And while he has taken advantage of tax laws he didn’t write, please, tell me how many tax deductions you yourself have left on the table approaching April 15th? Meanwhile, Hillary uses her government position to advance her financial status. Joy Overbeck’s most recent column compares and contrasts these two better than I can. After reading it, I dare anyone to try and equate the two. No, I double-dare you.

Planned Parenthood? Oh, come on! This one makes me angry. There’s no comparison. Hillary wants abortion any time, for any reason, including partial birth abortion. Trump has released a list of pro-life judges he’d like to appoint, has asked Ted Cruz to advise him on further appointments and just chose one of the most pro-life VP’s imaginable.

This is not an exhaustive list. It’s the tip of an enormous iceberg of ludicrous and easily disproven exaggerations.

And now that I’ve completely pissed people off, allow me to finish my thoughts.

What has happened to us? I agree that Trump is a DEEPLY flawed candidate and I wish he wasn’t our nominee. That said, I’ve never seen the circular firing squad more active. More vicious. We’ve lost our direction. We’ve forgotten why we are fighting. We don’t love the Constitution or this Country. What we love is fighting with each other.